Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Imagine if Freedman gets to cross Ferrar after those texts she sent JB.

[Anonymous]

I’ll wait for more details, I find everything the BL camp claims and puts out dodgy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll wait for more details, I find everything the BL camp claims and puts out dodgy.

I am with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In Ferrer’s alleged text message to Baldoni, she wrote:

"Just got my film developed from when we were shooting so here’s this sweet pic! I also have to say thank you SO much for an incredible experience on my first film. I still can’t shake the feeling of it all because it truly was life changing for me."

“You are such a wonderful, smart and sincere director and you created such a comfortable, safe space for me to feel like I could fully step into this role. I couldn’t have asked for a more welcoming environment. It will stay with me for the rest of my life!!! See you soon, whether in the fall or later, & hope you’re doing well.”

Though to be fair, women who file harassment and domestic violence claims get dinged unfairly for this all the time — also having positive communications with the harasser/abuser so that they won’t look back and retaliate you for your earlier disagreement etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll wait for more details, I find everything the BL camp claims and puts out dodgy.

Per Blake Lively “it’s an amalgamation of contradictions”. That’s the theme here. She’s like the Mad Hatter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll wait for more details, I find everything the BL camp claims and puts out dodgy.

I especially find it weird that tmz and Daily Mail passed on it, and only random YouTubers were willing to run the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll wait for more details, I find everything the BL camp claims and puts out dodgy.

I especially find it weird that tmz and Daily Mail passed on it, and only random YouTubers were willing to run the story.

Where are you getting they passed on it? That sounds like an unfounded rumor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll wait for more details, I find everything the BL camp claims and puts out dodgy.

I especially find it weird that tmz and Daily Mail passed on it, and only random YouTubers were willing to run the story.

Where are you getting they passed on it? That sounds like an unfounded rumor.

This whole Reddit thing is an unfounded rumor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll wait for more details, I find everything the BL camp claims and puts out dodgy.

I especially find it weird that tmz and Daily Mail passed on it, and only random YouTubers were willing to run the story.

Where are you getting they passed on it? That sounds like an unfounded rumor.

This whole Reddit thing is an unfounded rumor.

It's not coming from Reddit, it's coming from a Livestream of two very pro-Baldoni creators on YouTube. It's just being talked about in Reddit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll wait for more details, I find everything the BL camp claims and puts out dodgy.

I especially find it weird that tmz and Daily Mail passed on it, and only random YouTubers were willing to run the story.

Where are you getting they passed on it? That sounds like an unfounded rumor.

This whole Reddit thing is an unfounded rumor.

It's not coming from Reddit, it's coming from a Livestream of two very pro-Baldoni creators on YouTube. It's just being talked about in Reddit.

It’s in the very same Reddit thread, Candace Owens said they have been shopping the documents and both TMZ and Daily Mail passed.

There is no resin to redact dates and location complaint made, both would give document legitimacy. As would taking them to The NY Times, which would be more than happy to have help with their litigation.

For all these reasons, I’m going to wait and see if jar we learn over the next week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll wait for more details, I find everything the BL camp claims and puts out dodgy.

I especially find it weird that tmz and Daily Mail passed on it, and only random YouTubers were willing to run the story.

Where are you getting they passed on it? That sounds like an unfounded rumor.

This whole Reddit thing is an unfounded rumor.

It's not coming from Reddit, it's coming from a Livestream of two very pro-Baldoni creators on YouTube. It's just being talked about in Reddit.

It’s in the very same Reddit thread, Candace Owens said they have been shopping the documents and both TMZ and Daily Mail passed.

There is no resin to redact dates and location complaint made, both would give document legitimacy. As would taking them to The NY Times, which would be more than happy to have help with their litigation.

For all these reasons, I’m going to wait and see if jar we learn over the next week.

I totally agree with you.

[Anonymous]

I also think the Jenny allegation is neither sh or sa. He likely put his hand on her lower back when directing her and she took offense. At which point, the correct thing for him to do would be to have her go to HR. That’s standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think the Jenny allegation is neither sh or sa. He likely put his hand on her lower back when directing her and she took offense. At which point, the correct thing for him to do would be to have her go to HR. That’s standard.

This is all so ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

I’m also the PP who posted this and wondered if this other discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Baldoni had already been discussed somewhere among these hundreds of pages of threads, most of which I have not read.

I've seen it mentioned on Reddit but not here. Criticism of Baldoni doesn't get traction here.

Because it’s horseshit - unless of course you can explain the parties involved, the bases alleged, all of it. I don’t know why you’re taking up for a brassy-haired liar so don’t be shy, make those astute comparisons, build that pattern.

Lively doesn’t have anything to do with this other lawsuit, which was filed in 2020 - not sure what Lively’s hair color has to do with anything here? I guess you’re saying Baldoni’s treatment of this dude is not relevant here, though a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed against Baldoni and Wayfarer a few years before events in this case began seems relevant? As described in this subreddit, about which I know nothing beyond it seems to be very pro-Lively or anti-Baldoni, it may suggest that Baldoni has a tendency to exploit people for his and his production company’s personal gain and isn’t afraid to retaliate, especially with the weight of his backer behind him.

Let’s stick with the present. Why did BL’s lawyers represent their subpoena as seeking only non content documents when the subpoena is in no way so limited? Seems sanctionable.

Still waiting on this.

The answer is that it is implied that they were only looking for logs because, and this is important, it's all the service providers can give them.

Service providers do not keep the content of messages. They don't record your phone calls. In order to get the text of messages, you have to subpoena the devices themselves, which they did not. So when they ask for all info related to a specific phone number, they are only looking for logs because that's all they can get.

It's pretty standard in a case like this to do a subpoena for call and text logs fairly early on because it creates a framework they can use for future discovery. Especially in a case like this where Lively and her team are going to have a lot of their own communications, and can use that to make sense of the logs to make a more specific request.

Both parties understand this, as do the service providers and the judge. But Baldoni's team knows that the average person does not understand this, which is why they drafted that letter that intentionally utilized a layperson's misunderstanding of the subpoena request to file objections. They knew their letter would make the rounds on social media and that the pro-JB crowd (who mostly have no idea how any of this works) would jump on it and say "oh yeah, here's Lively being grasping and unreasonable again." And it worked. But the judge will see through that and know that what his team is alleging was requested was never requested (communications with a doctor? spousal communication? come ON) in the first place.

It was a smart PR ploy but a meaningless legal move. I don't think it will really hurt them in court, at least not at this stage, but all the talk online about how Lively's team "screwed up" is just nonsense. This is how discovery in cases like this work. I've worked on a bunch of them and sat down with those stupid call logs and had to use them to construct specific discovery requests for the actual communications.

Nope, try again. It is not true that providers do not have copies of texts. They don’t maintain them for long but law enforcement commonly get them. And of course, kf one only wants logs, then one only requests logs.

But I admire your willingness to completely make things up. Perhaps there is a place on the Lively legal team for you.

Sure, law enforcement can get them where public safety overrides privacy concerns but (1) only for a very short period of time -- the carriers only hold the texts for a few days, at most a few weeks, and (2) because law enforcement is the only entity that can override the need for consent to disclose. Otherwise you need the sending party to consent to having the messages disclosed. And again, this is only for the very narrow period of time where the carrier even retains the messages. The carriers subpoenaed in this case likely do not currently have any messages for any party prior to 2025.

So no, there is no way to read these subpoena requests as requesting the actual messages. They were requesting call and text logs, as is very standard for an initial discovery request in a case like this.

This makes a lot of sense to me, logically. The provider can only surrender what they actually have — these were subpoenas to the wireless companies and not to the individuals themselves. I guess we will see soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

I’m also the PP who posted this and wondered if this other discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Baldoni had already been discussed somewhere among these hundreds of pages of threads, most of which I have not read.

I've seen it mentioned on Reddit but not here. Criticism of Baldoni doesn't get traction here.

Because it’s horseshit - unless of course you can explain the parties involved, the bases alleged, all of it. I don’t know why you’re taking up for a brassy-haired liar so don’t be shy, make those astute comparisons, build that pattern.

Lively doesn’t have anything to do with this other lawsuit, which was filed in 2020 - not sure what Lively’s hair color has to do with anything here? I guess you’re saying Baldoni’s treatment of this dude is not relevant here, though a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed against Baldoni and Wayfarer a few years before events in this case began seems relevant? As described in this subreddit, about which I know nothing beyond it seems to be very pro-Lively or anti-Baldoni, it may suggest that Baldoni has a tendency to exploit people for his and his production company’s personal gain and isn’t afraid to retaliate, especially with the weight of his backer behind him.

Let’s stick with the present. Why did BL’s lawyers represent their subpoena as seeking only non content documents when the subpoena is in no way so limited? Seems sanctionable.

Still waiting on this.

The answer is that it is implied that they were only looking for logs because, and this is important, it's all the service providers can give them.

Service providers do not keep the content of messages. They don't record your phone calls. In order to get the text of messages, you have to subpoena the devices themselves, which they did not. So when they ask for all info related to a specific phone number, they are only looking for logs because that's all they can get.

It's pretty standard in a case like this to do a subpoena for call and text logs fairly early on because it creates a framework they can use for future discovery. Especially in a case like this where Lively and her team are going to have a lot of their own communications, and can use that to make sense of the logs to make a more specific request.

Both parties understand this, as do the service providers and the judge. But Baldoni's team knows that the average person does not understand this, which is why they drafted that letter that intentionally utilized a layperson's misunderstanding of the subpoena request to file objections. They knew their letter would make the rounds on social media and that the pro-JB crowd (who mostly have no idea how any of this works) would jump on it and say "oh yeah, here's Lively being grasping and unreasonable again." And it worked. But the judge will see through that and know that what his team is alleging was requested was never requested (communications with a doctor? spousal communication? come ON) in the first place.

It was a smart PR ploy but a meaningless legal move. I don't think it will really hurt them in court, at least not at this stage, but all the talk online about how Lively's team "screwed up" is just nonsense. This is how discovery in cases like this work. I've worked on a bunch of them and sat down with those stupid call logs and had to use them to construct specific discovery requests for the actual communications.

Nope, try again. It is not true that providers do not have copies of texts. They don’t maintain them for long but law enforcement commonly get them. And of course, kf one only wants logs, then one only requests logs.

But I admire your willingness to completely make things up. Perhaps there is a place on the Lively legal team for you.

Sure, law enforcement can get them where public safety overrides privacy concerns but (1) only for a very short period of time -- the carriers only hold the texts for a few days, at most a few weeks, and (2) because law enforcement is the only entity that can override the need for consent to disclose. Otherwise you need the sending party to consent to having the messages disclosed. And again, this is only for the very narrow period of time where the carrier even retains the messages. The carriers subpoenaed in this case likely do not currently have any messages for any party prior to 2025.

So no, there is no way to read these subpoena requests as requesting the actual messages. They were requesting call and text logs, as is very standard for an initial discovery request in a case like this.

This makes a lot of sense to me, logically. The provider can only surrender what they actually have — these were subpoenas to the wireless companies and not to the individuals themselves. I guess we will see soon enough.

If this was the actual intent, there would be no need to use the “not limited to” language. And the last request does not even ask for logs at all.